Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Thorsten Behrens wrote: hm, I guess most rules can be gamed, by any sufficiently determined adversary - so I would favour simple, effective bylaws, and use common sense otherwise. Additionally, you want to provide the proverbial Big Corp some incentive to join - note that this was one specific shortcoming of the OOo project. If they don't see a chance to have at least some say, why should they sponsor developers in the first place? Sorry, but I still see in your words the same misunderstanding between Foundation and Community that generated my initial reply in this thread. IMO, if a corporation wants to have a word in a decision about where the project goes, it should join the Foundation and respect its rules. Any other type of contribution is surely appreciated but, IMO, it's very far from granting a *right* to influence where the project goes. Maybe, this consideration depends on what foundation are in my country: very strong and well defined legal entities that are different from a simple association. Sincerely, I still see the Foundation affair a bit too foggy and I'm not sure I'll like it at the end. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-26 07:09, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : Thorsten Behrens wrote: hm, I guess most rules can be gamed, by any sufficiently determined adversary - so I would favour simple, effective bylaws, and use common sense otherwise. Additionally, you want to provide the proverbial Big Corp some incentive to join - note that this was one specific shortcoming of the OOo project. If they don't see a chance to have at least some say, why should they sponsor developers in the first place? Sorry, but I still see in your words the same misunderstanding between Foundation and Community that generated my initial reply in this thread. IMO, if a corporation wants to have a word in a decision about where the project goes, it should join the Foundation and respect its rules. Any other type of contribution is surely appreciated but, IMO, it's very far from granting a *right* to influence where the project goes. Maybe, this consideration depends on what foundation are in my country: very strong and well defined legal entities that are different from a simple association. Sincerely, I still see the Foundation affair a bit too foggy and I'm not sure I'll like it at the end. Regards, Hi Gianluca: I think that we are all agreed that the financial contributions by corporations should not influence the direction of the project and that members of the LibO will always be in charge of the project. However, that said, it would make sense that large contributors should be recognized in some way and should perhaps have some say along with the membership in some aspects of the LibO project. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that corporations could just contribute and therefore take complete or partial control of the LibO project or some aspects of the LibO project. They we can allow them some say somewhere. Marc -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Gianluca Turconi wrote: Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough to join the steering group of TDF? No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a vote at board elections. Wow, that last sentence is *exactly* what I *don't* want. :) Such informal approach is impracticable when a *real* Foundation has to take decisions in order to legally defend the base code, create a sure development roadmap (or nominate who create the roadmap) and decide about controversial alliances. Stricter initial rules make stronger organizations in the long run. Hi Gianluca, hm, I guess most rules can be gamed, by any sufficiently determined adversary - so I would favour simple, effective bylaws, and use common sense otherwise. Additionally, you want to provide the proverbial Big Corp some incentive to join - note that this was one specific shortcoming of the OOo project. If they don't see a chance to have at least some say, why should they sponsor developers in the first place? Gnome e.g. has the advisory board, where corporations (in contrast to individual members) are grouped: http://live.gnome.org/AdvisoryBoard Institutional membership to Gnome has an annual fee (some lower 5-digit figure, IIRC), that allows the foundation to cover administrative costs, hold a conference etc. Personal membership, though, should have low/zero annual cost. Also, with the proposed membership committee, there'll be humans having the final say over who's becoming a member and who's not - pick that group wisely, and I don't see much issues with the process. ;) Cheers, -- Thorsten -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
on Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com meant to write: - sorry, the pronoun 'you' - I was _not_ talking about you the individual there. Ahh, yes of course Sorry! Silly me ! Best wishes, Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Ciao Gianluca, Le Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:37:14 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : Il 20/10/2010 17.37, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: yes. So now, do you like what you see?:-) Well, generally speaking, yes. I'm just a bit worried about the point of view about membership expressed by Drew Jensen. Developers are surely a part of the Community core, but just a part. Yes, but I think, at least in the part for the lobbying, that Drew thinks of that as something that amounts to what I call advocacy. I do lobbying professionally, and it involves expertise, writing papers, documents, filing forms, following strategies, etc. And its a lot of work, so if I were to do this -I'm not doing it for TDF- I would expect, to see my contribution recognized, and would have tangible evidences to show to the membership committee. I've read your opinion too and I hope it will definitely prevail in the end by quantifying the intellectual contribution needed in order to join TDF. I simply don't want to see a division and disagreement between devs and laymen as a respin of the previous division between corporate employees and volunteers in the OOo Community. While I do absolutely agree that there should be no divide, (heck, I'm no developer myself), I also think that certain activities are appreciated but cannot constitute the only basis for membership consideration. But here, we're going down into details, which is good. Best, Charles. Regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:39:29 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com wrote: I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council; While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common council for the most important decisions. There is no reason why there could not be a proper foundation that acts as custodian for e.g. technical infrastructure, and holds eventual trademarks and decides on licensing policies for these etc. and a wider council that is composed of all contributors. Again, compare with the OpenStreetMap foundation (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About) with about 250 members (that makes the eligable to elect the steering committee for example), yet the recent relicensing campaign is decided by all x-thousand contributors. There is no reason why decisions like which GUI to adopt etc cannot be voted on by a wider community (which is organized and blessed by the TDF). I am not sure we want to have open-for-all polls on things like we should discard mono, they are too prone to slashdot-initiated rigging and allows the non-contributing majority to make decisions they don't have to implement. After all the term meritocracy appears pretty often in relation with the TDF ... But as I am no lawyer and don't plan to implement governance things, I am going to shut up now :). Sebastian -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 19/10/2010 18.11, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined are so stringently different, but let's proceed according to your lines: why the model you see (let's put aside the model you think we see for a minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no religion here, I'm trying to understand, and it's good because we're having a really important discussion which is not even an argument :-) ) Outside alliances and collaborations (the second model) are based on commons interests that can be very volatile. They can diverge because of a job change, market evolution, new CEOs, graduation, family duties, and so on. On the other hand, the first model involves a *legal* commitment, with stronger duties and rights, and a formal involvement in an organization that has not *mere* interests, but statutory purposes. It's the same difference that there is between marriage and cohabitation. They are two different level of engagement. Outside observers can see the difference too. Think about the difference in perception about these sentences: Google *joins* TDF and Google *collaborate* with TDF There is a completely different feeling of supporting strength. Of course people and corporations can quit a foundation too, but it's surely less easy that kind of disengagement, just like people think thrice before divorcing. Furthermore, a central independent association with its own council, that steers the Community efforts, allows not lo lose focus on Chrarter's purposes. An enlarged group with a supreme committee may include people with very different and transient interests that may or may not correspond to the Charter's purposes. [...] I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, memberships have to be accepted (see the lower administrative section on the wiki page) and contributions can be rejected on various reasons (the patch is not correct, the logo looks shady, etc.) So I think that this might not be the chaos that some here might fear imho... please advise. Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and evaluation... ;-) That's an important step ahead. On the wiki a read: all these contributions need to be non-trivial and last for a certain time frame. Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation. In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*. The contributor has a goal and the foundation still keeps a partially discretional judgement of opportunity about his/her membership. 10 lines of code or a logo? Too low, at least *if* there is only *one* class of foundation members. Regards, -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 19/10/2010 20.13, André Schnabel ha scritto: [...] You can help and support us by becoming a member of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. The membership fee is £15 per year and enables you to influence the direction of OpenStreetMap by being able to vote in elections for officers of the foundation. This just means that I can buy in? I agree, that this is definately formal - but how does this help have the foundation act in favour of it's projects? Still - I try to understand. It is not important an entry fee, but IMO it should exist a stronger filter for members' acceptance. In another branch of this thread, I was discussing with Charles a two phase procedure: a) contribution by the applicant; b) evaluation of that contribution by current members before acceptance of membership for TDF. Under point a), the contribution should be consistent in contributed time and work (not too high, not too low entry level) so that applicants can be creamed off and risks of hijacking decreased. Under point b), the evaluation should not, IMO, be merely technical (i.e. a patch is refused) but it should include a judgment of opportunity about membership. It would be a compromise between a fully free membership process and a completely discretionary one. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi, Von: Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:39:29 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com wrote: I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council; While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common council for the most important decisions. There is no reason why there could not be a proper foundation that acts as custodian for e.g. technical infrastructure, and holds eventual trademarks and decides on licensing policies for these etc. and a wider council that is composed of all contributors. Indeed this should be the picture. Maybe I am thinking to much in terms of German (foundation) law already, where: - the foundation is an legal entity that has no members (but may have staff) - the foundation is bound to it's bylaws - the foundation is directed by a board (which has to be defined in the byaws) So the board of the foundation is the ultimate decision making entity. (Very likely to be the current SC for the first time.) There will be a wider council of contributors. What we currently discuss is how this council is established. At the same time I don't want to have the SC separated from the wider council. If we do so, we would again have the situation, that contributing members have no power on decisions of the foundation's board. I may be wrong with this - maybe someone can explain a better way. Again, compare with the OpenStreetMap foundation (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About) with about 250 members (that makes the eligable to elect the steering committee for example), yet the recent relicensing campaign is decided by all x-thousand contributors. Again - It was not the intention to have a board of the foundation that consist of all the 1000 contributors. But I don't see the benefit of having a set of contributors working for the projects that a foundation supports and a nother set of people that just can by a seat in the foundation and then have voting powers. This would result in something like the MS bought ISO story. But as I am no lawyer and don't plan to implement governance things, I am going to shut up now :). Well - we just want to make sure that you are happy and does not find your contributions are misused. So - I just try to understand. André -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi Gainluca, Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and evaluation... ;-) That's an important step ahead. On the wiki a read: all these contributions need to be non-trivial and last for a certain time frame. Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation. In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*. Ok, so may we agree to the general idea to this process (contribute - apply for membership - contributions gets evaluated - membership gets approved or denied) but need to find a good definition what amount / time of contributions qualify for acceptance? regards, André -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 20/10/2010 9.53, Sebastian Spaeth ha scritto: [...] There is no reason why there could not be a proper foundation that acts as custodian for e.g. technical infrastructure, and holds eventual trademarks and decides on licensing policies for these etc. and a wider council that is composed of all contributors. Nah... it's a legal nightmare. Some people (Foundation's members) would have all duties and other people (outside supporters with vote in the steering council) all rights and no duty. Liability is not just a word when decisions are made. There is no reason why decisions like which GUI to adopt etc cannot be voted on by a wider community (which is organized and blessed by the TDF). That's another matter. The members of the Foundation can decide that some kind of problems can be solved even by a public poll. However, the *members* of the *Foundation* *decide*. Of course, it's so *if* this foundation has to have a steering role in the community, only. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-20 04:41, Gianluca Turconi a écrit : Il 20/10/2010 9.53, Sebastian Spaeth ha scritto: [...] There is no reason why there could not be a proper foundation that acts as custodian for e.g. technical infrastructure, and holds eventual trademarks and decides on licensing policies for these etc. and a wider council that is composed of all contributors. Nah... it's a legal nightmare. Some people (Foundation's members) would have all duties and other people (outside supporters with vote in the steering council) all rights and no duty. I think in this case, no individuals, but the foundation would hold the rights. Liability is not just a word when decisions are made. There is no reason why decisions like which GUI to adopt etc cannot be voted on by a wider community (which is organized and blessed by the TDF). That's another matter. The members of the Foundation can decide that some kind of problems can be solved even by a public poll. However, the *members* of the *Foundation* *decide*. Of course, it's so *if* this foundation has to have a steering role in the community, only. I agree with this concept but more like this: The Document Foundation would have more of a steering role in the community and the projects underneath become more members of their respective projects. In this case LibO. Pyramid style with the Foundation at the top. Marc -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 20/10/2010 11.34, Marc Paré ha scritto: [...] However, the *members* of the *Foundation* *decide*. Of course, it's so *if* this foundation has to have a steering role in the community, only. I agree with this concept but more like this: The Document Foundation would have more of a steering role in the community and the projects underneath become more members of their respective projects. In this case LibO. Pyramid style with the Foundation at the top. Uhm... The relationship between TDF membership and TDF multiple projects is another issue that has to be discussed *in the future*. Example: I've contributed to LibO and gained TDF membership, can I vote and decide for a TDF Mail Calendar subproject for which I've contributed nothing? -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 10:33 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: Hi Gainluca, Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and evaluation... ;-) That's an important step ahead. On the wiki a read: all these contributions need to be non-trivial and last for a certain time frame. Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation. In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*. Ok, so may we agree to the general idea to this process (contribute - apply for membership - contributions gets evaluated - membership gets approved or denied) but need to find a good definition what amount / time of contributions qualify for acceptance? Hello André, I like the above paragraph also - as for strict or general requirements, I would tend to favor general, it is IMO the only workable way to get quality of contribution into the mix. One question: Beyond voting for the 'legal entity' board of directors, what other, if any, types of issues do you see the general membership voting on? I ask that to get a feel for the size of the group expected...more on that as a follow up I think. Thanks Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-20 07:30, Drew Jensen a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 10:33 +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: Hi Gainluca, Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and evaluation... ;-) That's an important step ahead. On the wiki a read: all these contributions need to be non-trivial and last for a certain time frame. Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours? A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation. In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*. Ok, so may we agree to the general idea to this process (contribute - apply for membership - contributions gets evaluated - membership gets approved or denied) but need to find a good definition what amount / time of contributions qualify for acceptance? Hello André, I like the above paragraph also - as for strict or general requirements, I would tend to favor general, it is IMO the only workable way to get quality of contribution into the mix. One question: Beyond voting for the 'legal entity' board of directors, what other, if any, types of issues do you see the general membership voting on? I ask that to get a feel for the size of the group expected...more on that as a follow up I think. Thanks Drew If all contributors are eligible to become members through the membership designation process, would you not worry that the size of the membership being so large as to no longer be an effective discussion/voting group. Maybe a consideration of a later group that would be an intermediary group between the SC and the TDF membership group should be considered. The larger the membership group grows the harder it then becomes to get consensus on voting matters. I also like the idea of membership acceptance process requiring member contribution + evaluation by current members. I believe that most non-members would expect such a process be in place in order to provide some sort of vetting of membership application. Marc -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
I decided I would try to convey my thoughts on this now First I had a couple of questions How many member do we envision being on the SC? How many projects does the SC envision having under the TDF. Right now I see the need for LibreOffice, and I really do see a need for a couple other projects. I would love an android app that opens LibreOffice files. maybe even a BlackBerry app and some other smartphone apps. If this is the case, I see the SC being made up of those that are currently on the SC at the present and then Representatives of the Projects that are under TDF. I feel that the projects should vote on those member that will become members of the SC. How many from each project should be related to the size of the project. The problem as I see it is how do you define the amount of contribution each person gives, cause in my opinion even the users are contributors to the project, without the users there would be no need for the project. So does simple registration make you a member of the project, or do you need to join one of the group that we will have? As for TDF, I would not be opposed to the members of TDF deciding who can join, say you want to join TDF, you send in some kind of resume, and the current members vote you in, or out, if they feel that needs to be the case, or they can ask for clarifing information if that is needed. Would I be opposed to some kind of membership fee to join TDF, no, I have been a member of several organizations that require a membership fee. TDF needs some kind of budget and we all enjoy using the software. I see no issue with it really. later as the project progresses and we get more member of TDF, I see elections to oppoint members of the SC from the larger TDF membership. Now keep in mind being a member of one of the projects does not mean you are a member of TDF. But you would get to vote for the representative to the SC for your project. these are just a few of my thoughts, please feel free to comment. James Walker -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, James Walker centra...@gmail.com wrote: The problem as I see it is how do you define the amount of contribution each person gives, cause in my opinion even the users are contributors to the project, without the users there would be no need for the project. I think the measurement is : 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code This is the type of decision that people have to make when forks are done and licenses cannot be settled. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:57:43 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Yes, but even there we have to find tangible things: delivrables, events, activities, etc. BTW; this discussion is not about how the SC should be composed. It's about how and who we call contributors/members. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Thanks, Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 21:00 +0800, David Nelson wrote: Hi, :-) Maybe you could just get yourselves sponsored as an Apache Software Foundation project +1 -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Those who promote the project, and those who provide user support for the project do provide substantial services to the project. Without them, you would have either no users or a small set of users. Contributions must include them in some way, or the project will suffer. Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:16 -0400, Drew Jensen wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Actually, I would need to amend that last sentence: Work on the main project or it's accepted sub-projects. For instance there may be extensions - either directly as Add-ons to the LibreOffice package, possibly even extensions to desktop packages with features specifically created to support LibreOffice and the ODF. Thanks Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hello, Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:37 -0400, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Why? Lobbying done in a professional way is a lot of work... Best, Charles. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. +1 Charles. Thanks, Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 20:30 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Hello, Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:37 -0400, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Why? Lobbying done in a professional way is a lot of work... my opinions follow - so I don't have write IMO 10 times...*smile* - If you lobby your local government for FOSS (even if LibreOfficee is included) then I would not consider that as working on this project. - If you write a lot of blogs that advocate FOSS and LibreOffice I also would not count that. - If you you go to shows/events/fairs and you work the halls, that is not working for this project, even if you mention LibreOffice a lot. - if you do that AND you also are active on the MLs here, you are on the marketing conference calls and you pitch in to help write and execute a marketing plan. Then you _are_ working on the project. -- I think that is how I would put it, but it could be refined no doubt. Best, Charles. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. +1 Charles. Thanks, Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-20 14:10, Drew Jensen a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:16 -0400, Drew Jensen wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Actually, I would need to amend that last sentence: Work on the main project or it's accepted sub-projects. For instance there may be extensions - either directly as Add-ons to the LibreOffice package, possibly even extensions to desktop packages with features specifically created to support LibreOffice and the ODF. Thanks Drew So you are proposing that a contributor is someone who has contributed either hard code or plug-in code etc. to the project. The contributions MUST be associated some way to code or ODF code convention. Presumably then, no one other than a dev or dev-like contributor could become a TDF member. So, let's take me as an example, I am part of the Canadian Marketing Team which is starting from zero resources and contacts. If I make arrangements for Marcon's in our 12 regions of my country; make arrangements for large city LibO representatives; make arrangements for a national conference with conference facilities for our newly expanded Canadian Marketing Team and then try to find corporate sponsorship for both Canadian Marketing Team and LibO advertising and installfests etc. This according to your criteria would not suffice to award me membership into the TDF. Would this not, in some way, be considered as a contributor to the TDF? If not, then how would I be able to make my voice heard to the TDF membership when there was an issue that I would consider important to me or LibO? If yes, then, what measure could we use, to consider such a person as described, to award membership status. How much would a person have to contribute (I am still taking my example as Canadian Marketing Team member) to be awarded membership status? For that matter, how about the people providing on the localization projects? IMHO, I believe you are skipping one major step by establishing membership criteria to the TDF. The hierarchy must be established first and then define membership. The hierarchy is pretty well evident as I has posted my suggestion re: this before and out of coincidence James Walker, in a different way, suggested, on this thread, the same organization of the TDF project as I had. I am sure that we will not be the only ones to define it this way as it is the natural way to organize the groups. (I quote James Walker here for the sake of convenience, below) - I decided I would try to convey my thoughts on this now First I had a couple of questions How many member do we envision being on the SC? How many projects does the SC envision having under the TDF. Right now I see the need for LibreOffice, and I really do see a need for a couple other projects. I would love an android app that opens LibreOffice files. maybe even a BlackBerry app and some other smartphone apps. If this is the case, I see the SC being made up of those that are currently on the SC at the present and then Representatives of the Projects that are under TDF. I feel that the projects should vote on those member that will become members of the SC. How many from each project should be related to the size of the project. The problem as I see it is how do you define the amount of contribution each person gives, cause in my opinion even the users are contributors to the project, without the users there would be no need for the project. So does simple registration make you a member of the project, or do you need to join one of the group that we will have? As for TDF, I would not be opposed to the members of TDF deciding who can join, say you want to join TDF, you send in some kind of resume, and the current members vote you in, or out, if they feel that needs to be the case, or they can ask for clarifing information if that is needed. Would I be opposed to some kind of membership fee to join TDF, no, I have been a member of several organizations that require a membership fee. TDF needs some kind of budget and we all enjoy using the software. I see no issue with it really. later as the project progresses and we get more member of TDF, I see elections to oppoint members of the SC from the larger TDF membership. Now keep in mind being a member of one of the projects does not mean you are a member of TDF. But you would get to vote for the representative to the SC for your project. these are just a few of my thoughts, please feel free
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 14:48 -0400, Marc Paré wrote: Le 2010-10-20 14:10, Drew Jensen a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 13:16 -0400, Drew Jensen wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Actually, I would need to amend that last sentence: Work on the main project or it's accepted sub-projects. For instance there may be extensions - either directly as Add-ons to the LibreOffice package, possibly even extensions to desktop packages with features specifically created to support LibreOffice and the ODF. Thanks Drew So you are proposing that a contributor is someone who has contributed either hard code or plug-in code etc. to the project. The contributions MUST be associated some way to code or ODF code convention. If you are asking for membership and your area of contribution is coding then yes - but it is not the only type of work that is considered. Presumably then, no one other than a dev or dev-like contributor could become a TDF member. The draft on the wiki specifically lists marketing and other actions as working on the project. So, let's take me as an example, I am part of the Canadian Marketing Team which is starting from zero resources and contacts. If I make arrangements for Marcon's in our 12 regions of my country; make arrangements for large city LibO representatives; make arrangements for a national conference with conference facilities for our newly expanded Canadian Marketing Team and then try to find corporate sponsorship for both Canadian Marketing Team and LibO advertising and installfests etc. This according to your criteria would not suffice to award me membership into the TDF. Would this not, in some way, be considered as a contributor to the TDF? If not, then how would I be able to make my voice heard to the TDF membership when there was an issue that I would consider important to me or LibO? If yes, then, what measure could we use, to consider such a person as described, to award membership status. How much would a person have to contribute (I am still taking my example as Canadian Marketing Team member) to be awarded membership status? See my response to Charles and Mike a few minutes ago for my thoughts on that. For that matter, how about the people providing on the localization projects? Again specifically mentioned in the draft. IMHO, I believe you are skipping one major step by establishing membership criteria to the TDF. The hierarchy must be established first and then define membership. That is one approach - I don't think it is one that most here would sign onto..but could be wrong. I'm still chewing that over.. The hierarchy is pretty well evident as I has posted my suggestion re: this before and out of coincidence James Walker, in a different way, suggested, on this thread, the same organization of the TDF project as I had. I am sure that we will not be the only ones to define it this way as it is the natural way to organize the groups. (I quote James Walker here for the sake of convenience, below) Thanks - I'll add comments to that email from James. Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 20:30 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:37 -0400, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples.k - if you do that AND you also are active on the MLs here, you are on the marketing conference calls and you pitch in to help write and execute a marketing plan. Then you _are_ working on the project. Agreed, though I wouldn't just say the MLs, but the forums, etc. You have to be part of the community as well; not just out saying things about it. I've come and gone through a number of communities - Subversion, Samba, PHP, to name a couple - over the years as interests, time, and demands require. I haven't quite contributed to any them in terms of code, but I was contributing to them in terms of user support - helping people with questions, etc; and in some cases submitting feature requests, etc. All of that is contribution. Perhaps another model to consider is Gentoo's model - http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/. Many contribute on the list, but only a few are brought into the Gentoo Foundation. Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 19:45 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. You can define contribution as documents or commits to a repository or wiki, or recruiting of new members to a team, you can define karma like ubuntu lauchpad does. I have done alot of advocating and promoting of OOO in Kosovo, Hello Mike, Ok - let's try to refine this. trying to find translators and also aquiring the source code of the 2.0 translation. That is actively working on the project, IMO. I have also spent ... time on events and meetings. That is actively working on the project, per the definition at the wiki page. Right now we are looking at the huge task of translation from version 2, and I have to say, it is just too big, we need a smaller set of strings and an easier way to get members to contribute. To be honest, a facebook app would be the best way to get people to contribute, Here is an interesting one - let's say that you did not actively work on translations (yet) and you have not started working at the booth in fairs and expos (yet..:) - but you started with your own initiative by creating a Facebook app, in fact let's pull that down a notch and say that you have started a FB fan page which is focused on LibreOffice, and you have dutifully worked that fan page for some period of time. ( let's say 6 months) Now you come and ask for membership - I would say that is probably not enough for me to agree, but it would be a factor I would consider, if you where doing other things also. Just some thoughts on that. I am not asking for membership, I am stating what minimal things I have done for OOO. I am able to do coding etc, my role in this project for the albanian language will be in recruiting members and finding funding or motivation for the localization, until the point that we find someone better to take over this. My membership is with the flossk.org group that we founded in promoting FLOSS in kosovo and one of the projects is the open office localization, I see that libreoffice and tdf are going to be more dynamic I hope or at least help make a difference. If I get offered membership, I will hope that it is because I earned it, and I am also able to cut code, but am already over committed on things right now. What we really need to do is come up with ideas on making libreoffice smaller and more managable, and I think I can help with that. you can see my lists of suggestions in some other mail. thanks, mike -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:01 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 19:45 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: You can define contribution as documents or commits to a repository or wiki, or recruiting of new members to a team, you can define karma like ubuntu lauchpad does. I have done alot of advocating and promoting of OOO in Kosovo, Hello Mike, Ok - let's try to refine this. trying to find translators and also aquiring the source code of the 2.0 translation. That is actively working on the project, IMO. I have also spent ... time on events and meetings. That is actively working on the project, per the definition at the wiki page. To be honest, a facebook app would be the best way to get people to contribute, Here is an interesting one - let's say that you did not actively work on translations (yet) and you have not started working at the booth in fairs and expos (yet..:) - but you started with your own initiative by creating a Facebook app, in fact let's pull that down a notch and say that you have started a FB fan page which is focused on LibreOffice, and you have dutifully worked that fan page for some period of time. ( let's say 6 months) Now you come and ask for membership - I would say that is probably not enough for me to agree, but it would be a factor I would consider, if you where doing other things also. Just some thoughts on that. I am not asking for membership, I am stating what minimal things I have done for OOO. Howdy Mike I should know better - sorry, the pronoun 'you' - I was talking about you the individual there. Rather was just postulating to a generic person. I picked on the fb scenario, where the person(a) _primarily_ and perhaps exclusively, works in social media promoting LibreOffice/TDF/ODF, because it is well known to me, having put a few together, that was the only reason for using it. I am able to do coding etc, my role in this project for the albanian language will be in recruiting members and finding funding or motivation for the localization, until the point that we find someone better to take over this. My membership is with the flossk.org group that we founded in Right - and the draft on the wiki quite specifically states that no one would need to pick a project, joining this one in other words, over another. So you can be active on multiple projects - of course. If you look at what is in the email and the wiki page I believe you will see that translating is most certainly considered contributing. Same is true for working a LibreOffice booth at a fair or linux fest. If I get offered membership, I will hope that it is because I earned it, and I am also able to cut code, but am already over committed on things right now. Understond - most here are. What we really need to do is come up with ideas on making libreoffice smaller and more managable, Come on over the the libreoffice ml with the developers, lurk for a while, who knows you might just have the right idea in the right conversation.. Best wishes, Drew -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com wrote: Here is an interesting one - let's say that you did not actively work on translations (yet) and you have not started working at the booth in fairs and expos (yet..:) - but you started with your own initiative by creating a Facebook app, in fact let's pull that down a notch and say that you have started a FB fan page which is focused on LibreOffice, and you have dutifully worked that fan page for some period of time. ( let's say 6 months) Now you come and ask for membership - I would say that is probably not enough for me to agree, but it would be a factor I would consider, if you where doing other things also. Just some thoughts on that. I am not asking for membership, I am stating what minimal things I have done for OOO. Howdy Mike I should know better - sorry, the pronoun 'you' - I was talking about you the individual there. Rather was just postulating to a generic person. I picked on the fb scenario, where the person(a) _primarily_ and perhaps exclusively, works in social media promoting LibreOffice/TDF/ODF, because it is well known to me, having put a few together, that was the only reason for using it. Ahh, yes of course Sorry! Silly me ! -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi, Von: Jean Hollis Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com It looks good to me and covers most of the points I am familiar with in other volunteer organisations. The ND Manifesto is mentioned twice, but I don't know what or where that is. thanks for the reminder - I changed the text to be links. André -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 09:15 +0200, Erich Christian wrote: Hi Jean, * Am 19.10.2010 08:46, schrieb Jean Hollis Weber: On Mon, 2010-10-18, André Schnabel wrote: To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership It looks good to me and covers most of the points I am familiar with in other volunteer organisations. The ND Manifesto is mentioned twice, but I don't know what or where that is. I think it should be a textlink from the page, here it is http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Next_Decade_Manifesto Oh! Gosh, my memory is bad. I had read that manifesto, but I didn't remember the name or make the connection. André, thanks for linking it. --Jean -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hallo André, André Schnabel schrieb: For discussion please use this mailinglist and try to keep the thread alive. If a new thread is started, please add at least the tag [SC] and the word Membership in the subject. I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion, Very little response so far. My personal reason why I didn´t respond: 100% accordance. ;-) Stefan -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
In data 18 ottobre 2010 alle ore 18:44:25, André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net ha scritto: To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership I've read that post, but I think you're reiterating an old misconception by confusing the Document Foundation with the wider LibreOffice Community. I'll try to explain why. The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a cell) that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that the rest of the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable and agrees to support. What the TDF does and who formally belongs to its organization may substantially differ from who cooperate with and belongs to the wider OOo community. Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough to join the steering group of TDF? IMO, no, because you should contribute *and* formally and publicly share TDF principles *in the past and present and facts*, in order to join the foundation steering institutions. Another hypothetical example: tomorrow, Microsoft CEO wakes up and says to TDF: Here is a 20 million per year check in order to develop XYZ future in LibreOffice, can we join TDF and its steering group? The twenty million income is surely a good thing ;-) , but I would expect from TDF a reply like this: Wait, we know your past. Join the wider LibreOffice Community by paying independent developers, sponsoring events and projects and then we'll evaluate your application for membership. In a nutshell: we have to trust you in the facts during a rather long period of time. Google has a past of open source and open formats support. It may be a good member. Microsoft, instead... Well, it's Microsoft. IMVHO, a double request, contribution *and* acceptation *in the facts* of the Charter's purposes, should be the base of any membership within TDF. Of course, such approach involves a cooptative membership procedure in which the current TDF members evaluate the actual contribution and previous commitment to the Charter's purposes and Libreffice Community made by the membership applicant. Indeed, always IMO, it's better a tinier group of members but with a strong and evident commitment to the Charter's purposes rather than a larger group with a questionable background and composed by members who are contributing for *their* own purposes. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi Gianluca, Von: Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com I've read that post, but I think you're reiterating an old misconception by confusing the Document Foundation with the wider LibreOffice Community. Hmm .. so the first topic (term definition Member) is not very clear. I'm not speaking about members of legal entity The Docuemnt Foundation but of those people who will be recognised as the community able to influence the legal entitie's decisions. The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a cell) that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that the rest of the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable and agrees to support. I tend to disagree here - while the Foundation is bound to it's charter community should not just support the Foundation because they like the Foundation, but because they can influence the way the foundation acts. Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough to join the steering group of TDF? No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a vote at board elections. IMO, no, because you should contribute *and* formally and publicly share TDF principles *in the past and present and facts*, in order to join the foundation steering institutions. Oh - this is written in the basic principles: Members need to agree to the charter of the foundation Isn't this clear enough? (I just to try to understand your point) Another hypothetical example: tomorrow, Microsoft CEO wakes up and says to TDF: Here is a 20 million per year check in order to develop XYZ future in LibreOffice, can we join TDF and its steering group? The twenty million income is surely a good thing ;-) Sorry, if you think, that this would establish the right to be accepted as a Member you did not read the page at all :( There is curerntly no by in option to become a member. IMVHO, a double request, contribution *and* acceptation *in the facts* of the Charter's purposes, should be the base of any membership within TDF. again: I tried to have exacrtly this at the basic principles http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership#basic_principles_for_members regards, André -- GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos. Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:37:02 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com wrote: I've read that post, but I think you're reiterating an old misconception by confusing the Document Foundation with the wider LibreOffice Community. Fully agree. Compare the OpenStreetMap Foundation. They have about 30,000 active contributors, aka community members, but around 250 or so active foundation members. Membership is formally acknowledged (I think costs 5£/year) and entitles you to vote etc. We *might* be more open when it comes to voting but that does not necessarily translate into a foundation membership. Sebastian -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi, :-) Maybe you could just get yourselves sponsored as an Apache Software Foundation project and avoid a lot of duplicated work, wasted time and endless discussion setting things up? David Nelson -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:42:26, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net ha scritto: Hmm .. so the first topic (term definition Member) is not very clear. I'm not speaking about members of legal entity The Docuemnt Foundation but of those people who will be recognised as the community able to influence the legal entitie's decisions. Sincerely, I don't understand what you mean, here. Do you want a replica of the OOo Community Council? I hope it's not the case, otherwise what usefulness would have a *real* Foundation? A person/corporation who wants to influence the Foundation (legal entity)'s decisions *must* join that legal entity or be entitled to act on its behalf from the Foundation itself. If not, he can grab the code and do whatever the license allows him to do with it. There may be exchange of code or collaborations, he/it would belong to the Community, but it's rather different than influence the legal entity's decisions. I think there is a *huge* misunderstanding between us about what an independent Foundation is. What you're describing is a group. At the very beginning of this list, I posted a message about the difference btw Foundation and Group and I'm still seeing the same misunderstanding. The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a cell) that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that the rest of the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable and agrees to support. I tend to disagree here - while the Foundation is bound to it's charter community should not just support the Foundation because they like the Foundation, but because they can influence the way the foundation acts. The Community *is* composed by individuals, corporations and public/legal entities. Do they want to influence the Foundation? They join it, *freely*. It's so simple. Outside supporters (Community members) cannot have any *direct* control of the Foundation, in my view of this matter. It's extremely dangerous. It generates uncontrolled influences and gray zones, like I wrote in the reply to Charles. Again: there may be external collaborations, alliances and other things like those, but it's different than having a vote for the board of the Foundation. Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough to join the steering group of TDF? No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a vote at board elections. Wow, that last sentence is *exactly* what I *don't* want. :) Such informal approach is impracticable when a *real* Foundation has to take decisions in order to legally defend the base code, create a sure development roadmap (or nominate who create the roadmap) and decide about controversial alliances. Stricter initial rules make stronger organizations in the long run. I understand there is a wish for a more open community, but you (pluralis maiestatis) should be cautious not to overact pursuing freedom and falling so in caos. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:43:01, Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de ha scritto: Fully agree. Compare the OpenStreetMap Foundation. They have about 30,000 active contributors, aka community members, but around 250 or so active foundation members. Membership is formally acknowledged That's what I meant. Informal membership and right of vote are things that don't sound well in the same sentence. And a formal membership should include something more that simply having contributed. -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi, André Schnabel schrieb: One of the very basic questions to answer is: Who is a member at TDF. Is there meant the membership in the TDF or in the LibreOffice-Community? Well - we (the Steering Committee) do not have a detailed answer on this, as we think that the voice of our contributors should be respected for this very important topic. So we want to discuss this here, before we come to a decision. To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership In my eyes this means a user, only watching the users-supportlist can not be a member of the community? Or how much mails has he/she to send with helpful tips to become a member of the community? How will you measure the contribution? Or depends it on the willing of others, higher in the hierarchy (with boardmembers highest), if a contribution is a contribution? Regards Karl-Heinz -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
2010/10/18 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, as you all know, we are working to make The Document Foundation an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation. This Foundation should be lead by it's members, based on their merit. One of the very basic questions to answer is: Who is a member at TDF. Well - we (the Steering Committee) do not have a detailed answer on this, as we think that the voice of our contributors should be respected for this very important topic. So we want to discuss this here, before we come to a decision. To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership Maybe defining what is not a member, could help out clear things up. These are initial thoughts, but I hope, you get the idea, what we are heading for. Please read and send comments to the mailinglist ( discuss@documentfoundation.org). For the first days I would not suggest to go deeply into details - we should get the general picture first (e.g. the very basic principles). For discussion please use this mailinglist and try to keep the thread alive. If a new thread is started, please add at least the tag [SC] and the word Membership in the subject. I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion, André -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgfor instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:50 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:34:33, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org ha scritto: I can understand why you want to make that distinction. My own interpretation, aside the fact that we stated at the beginning what we hear by member, is that how we define the membership applies to anyone, but it is based on its role and contribution. An individual should be able to contribute and be recognized as a member. As such, no corporation, who might also be a member, shall be recognized as having a higher footing; contributions are what matters only. Perhaps I did misunderstand you there, but there is of course another kind of community, which is often referred as an user community. Yes, it's likely you misunderstood me. :) I didn't mean the user community, but the dev community itself. However, I think there's another important misunderstanding about what *you* (Charles and Andre and maybe others) think a Foundation is and what *I* think it is. According to me, a Foundation is a central, independent legal entity that takes decisions about a productivity suite called LibreOffice (BTW, who owns the trademark?): how to protect its code base (without copyright assignment), how to further develop it, how to improve the open source ecosystem around its development. That kind of things cannot be done without a formal and well defined membership application. Contribution cannot be enough for a member's application acceptance, because in my conception of Foundation, there are actual principles that are not limited to contribution. And they cannot be tested in the books (I swear to respect the Foundation's Charter) but they must be clear in the facts (I'm a well respected member of the community and I've always acted in good faith in the past). I mean: this time, after what happened with Sun/Oracle, we need to cancel any gray zone and keep in mind that ***Free Software*** comes first. A larger members' base is useless for a Foundation if those gray zones are kept. So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get this right?) If that's what you implied, I... sort of don't agree with you but at the same time see wisdom in your objection. We would need protect certain parts of the foundation from direct, daily interference. However, where I don't agree with you is that we should, provided a majority of contributors do agree, be in charge of our own destiny. This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate some valuable input I think. Perhaps this could be resolve by two classes of membership? One of a general community membership recognized solely as suggested, and one that has a greater responsibility to TDF and TDFs agenda that also has a more thorough check to enter into, perhaps with the community membership as a pre-requisite requirement. I think the primary concern being raised is one of someone becoming a member for subversion purposes, much like what Microsoft did to ISO for OOXML. While Microsoft as an organization could not be a member, they certainly stuffed the appropriate committees with their people (directly and indirectly through partners)such that they were essentially the only voting entity. Since we are aware that some organizations will stoop that to that level to get their agenda through - whether it is a document format or simply to crush a competitor (again, Microsoft has been known, and can be shown to currently, to push their executives into an organization to subvert it for their agenda when the organization is not doing what they want - e.g. pushing Windows). I'm a bit of an outsider to this - one that would like to find a way of getting more involved at some point, so please take it for what its worth. Ben P.S. Not meaning to pick on Microsoft here, they just have the best, most recent, and most well known examples of the suggested bad-behavior that needs to be protected again. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Il 19/10/2010 17.19, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get this right?) Yes, that's the point. :) [...] This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate some valuable input I think. Really, *how* can you separate the membership from the governance? You know: one head, one vote. ;-) There are Foundations that have different classes of members (like stockholders), but I see really difficult to apply such method to a free software organization. In addition to this, I still feel I'm still missing something in your argument. In fact, you seem considering the Foundation as a part of a larger egalitarian group rather than the leading association that primarily acts for the sake of LibreOffice. I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council; While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common council for the most important decisions. Frankly, if it's so, it isn't what I hoped when I heard about TDF for the first time. :'( -- Gianluca Turconi -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:42:00 -0500, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org a écrit : 2010/10/18 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Hi, as you all know, we are working to make The Document Foundation an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation. This Foundation should be lead by it's members, based on their merit. One of the very basic questions to answer is: Who is a member at TDF. Well - we (the Steering Committee) do not have a detailed answer on this, as we think that the voice of our contributors should be respected for this very important topic. So we want to discuss this here, before we come to a decision. To get things started, I put some notes at the wiki: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership Maybe defining what is not a member, could help out clear things up. Well, we would like to avoid going into negative definitions. The idea is that we should be able to have people contributing effectively before claiming their membership, that's all. Best, Charles. These are initial thoughts, but I hope, you get the idea, what we are heading for. Please read and send comments to the mailinglist ( discuss@documentfoundation.org). For the first days I would not suggest to go deeply into details - we should get the general picture first (e.g. the very basic principles). For discussion please use this mailinglist and try to keep the thread alive. If a new thread is started, please add at least the tag [SC] and the word Membership in the subject. I'm looking forward to a constructive discussion, André -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgfor instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:39:29 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : Il 19/10/2010 17.19, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get this right?) Yes, that's the point. :) [...] This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate some valuable input I think. Really, *how* can you separate the membership from the governance? You know: one head, one vote. ;-) Yes. But here we're only trying to define what one head means, and then we decide what the head can vote for :-) There are Foundations that have different classes of members (like stockholders), but I see really difficult to apply such method to a free software organization. yes indeed. In addition to this, I still feel I'm still missing something in your argument. In fact, you seem considering the Foundation as a part of a larger egalitarian group rather than the leading association that primarily acts for the sake of LibreOffice. I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council; While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common council for the most important decisions. Frankly, if it's so, it isn't what I hoped when I heard about TDF for the first time. :'( Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined are so stringently different, but let's proceed according to your lines: why the model you see (let's put aside the model you think we see for a minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no religion here, I'm trying to understand, and it's good because we're having a really important discussion which is not even an argument :-) ) As a side note, here's what I think should always lead our actions. Some call it meritocracy, but if we stop focusing on big names, here's how it is supposed to work: contributor A contribute x amount of work (code, qa tests, documentation, administrative tasks, localization, icon designs, etc.)At some point it's fair if he gets a say in what we do. Now there's the (valid) objection: but anyone with a sufficient force can come up, align contributors contributing stuff, and bing, they are in charge of the foundation. I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, memberships have to be accepted (see the lower administrative section on the wiki page) and contributions can be rejected on various reasons (the patch is not correct, the logo looks shady, etc.) So I think that this might not be the chaos that some here might fear imho... please advise. Best, -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 17:53 +0200, Christoph Noack wrote: Hi all! Am Dienstag, den 19.10.2010, 11:29 +0200 schrieb Stefan Weigel: Very little response so far. My personal reason why I didn´t respond: 100% accordance. +1 (but I will continue to think about that...) ;-) +1 ;-) Cheers, Christoph Hello, Not fully up to date with reading all the emails but I think this is a good to jump in on. I've reviewed the wiki page for membership. At first blush I'm close to agreement with it - but I have concerns on one or two points. I will not be sending in more email on this point till later tonight after I have tried to expand my concerns and offer suggestions to address them. and after I have read ALL the emails.. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Hi, Am 19.10.2010 20:10, schrieb Marc Paré: Hierarchy: We need to talk about Hirachy for sure but ... The Document Foundation is the umbrella group where all projects answer to it. Presently, under this umbrella, there is only 1 project: LibreOffice. There is however, the potential for further project development that could be added later under TDF umbrella. The LibreOffice project is a project under the TDF umbrella and will provide 2-3 representatives (either by meritocracy or community vote) who sit on the SC in an advisory capacity. This clearly defines the membership of the LibO project. this just moves the problem from defining a TDF-member to the problem of defining a LibO-project-member. regards, André -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-19 15:00, André Schnabel a écrit : Hi, Am 19.10.2010 20:10, schrieb Marc Paré: Hierarchy: We need to talk about Hirachy for sure but ... The Document Foundation is the umbrella group where all projects answer to it. Presently, under this umbrella, there is only 1 project: LibreOffice. There is however, the potential for further project development that could be added later under TDF umbrella. The LibreOffice project is a project under the TDF umbrella and will provide 2-3 representatives (either by meritocracy or community vote) who sit on the SC in an advisory capacity. This clearly defines the membership of the LibO project. this just moves the problem from defining a TDF-member to the problem of defining a LibO-project-member. regards, André Yes. Then if this model is acceptable. Let's define the LibO-project-member instead. We could then consider the TDF member definition complete. Marc -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
Le 2010-10-19 15:09, Mike Dupont a écrit : 2010/10/19 André Schnabelandre.schna...@gmx.net: this just moves the problem from defining a TDF-member to the problem of Here is a sarcastic definition of member : A member of DF is someone who is not working for some big unenlightened company (SBUC), because the act of joining that would get you fired by said SBUC. mike Not at all, in my model proposition, the Major financial outside contributors would provide 1 representative only, and would gain voting status less equal in weight to SC members, which would safeguard any attempt to take control of the TDF board. Marc -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
